Free Republic Browse · Search General/Chat Topics · Post Article

Hypothesis: All Odd Numbers Greater Than One are Prime.
My twisted mind ^ | January 18, 2011 | Vanity

Posted on 01/18/2011 11:17:36 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets

Hypothesis: All odd numbers greater than one are prime

Proofs:

Engineer: 3, 5, 7, YES!

Physicist: 3, 5, 7, [experimental error], 11, 13, [experimental error], 17, 19. [grant runs dry.] At the 95% confidence level and within the limit of experimental error, we cannot reject the hypothesis that all odd numbers greater than one are primes.

Accountant: What do you want them to be?

Mathematician: Before we can answer that question we need to define a Galois field of positive integers and then over that field specify an operation, factorization such that for any member of the field, the operation of factorization produces a unique set of primatives, which are members of that field and which we will call “primes”. Now, ok, I forgot, what was the question?

AP Reporter: Experts say that it does not matter whether or not any particular odd number greater than one is prime, because it’s Sarah Palin’s fault, regardless, unless it’s a good thing in which case, President Obama hasn’t gotten nearly the credit he deserves.

President Obama: Aspirationally, as part of the American Dream, every number, should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not it is “prime” and furthermore, it is invidious and unfair to label certain numbers as “odd” or "prime" by some arbitrary standard of divisablity. I stand for what unites us, not what divides us!

Ezra Klein: It’s just a stunt! No body can tell what what numbers mean! They’re really old, over a hundred years old. Why should anyone today feel constrained by what a bunch of people in Greece or wherever, way back in grandpa’s day, thought about prime numbers? How many prime numbers can there possibly be? And who’s ever heard of any of them? Do you personally know any prime numbers? Can you name two or three? See, I thought not!

Andrei Cherny (of nolabels.org) : The very terms “odd” and “prime” are mere labels. We must put our labels aside, and put the issues and what’s best for the nation first.

TOPICS: Chit/Chat
first 1-2021-36 next last
Embellish, mock, destroy, deride. BTW, the very last sentence is lifted, unaltered, from the nolabels.org website.
1 posted on 01/18/2011 11:17:40 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

NYT Headline: Not all odd number greater than one may be prime. Subhead: Women, minorities disproportionately impacted, experts say.

2 posted on 01/18/2011 11:19:49 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Entertaining post.

3 posted on 01/18/2011 11:20:53 AM PST by Padams

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

4 posted on 01/18/2011 11:23:18 AM PST by Eyes Unclouded ("The word bipartisan means some larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." -George Carlin)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Nitpicking Freeper: All Odd Numbers Greater Than [OR EQUAL TO] One are Prime.

There, fixed it.

5 posted on 01/18/2011 11:28:41 AM PST by DManA

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
6 posted on 01/18/2011 11:28:44 AM PST by spunkets

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Women’s Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a patriarchal construct designed to oppress women.

Gender Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a breeder construct designed to oppress GLBT people.

African-American Studies Prof: Primeness and Oddness are social constructs and have no objective reality. They are a racist construct designed to oppress African-Americans.

7 posted on 01/18/2011 11:29:15 AM PST by ModelBreaker

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Nine is not a prime number.

Lamh Foistenach Abu!
8 posted on 01/18/2011 11:30:39 AM PST by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines, RVN '69 - St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle!)

To: DManA

One, by definition, is not prime. I have suspicions about 9 and 15, and I’ll keep my eye on 23. Just in case.

9 posted on 01/18/2011 11:31:10 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: ConorMacNessa
Nine is not a prime number.

We'll have to recheck your calculations. For now we are carrying it as an experimental error. (See "physicists" above.)

10 posted on 01/18/2011 11:32:49 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Wait....what? I forgot the question. Guess my profession.

11 posted on 01/18/2011 11:32:52 AM PST by PuzzledInTX

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Fascist.

12 posted on 01/18/2011 11:35:12 AM PST by DManA

To: ConorMacNessa

2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29
31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67 71
73 79 83 89 97 101 103 107 109 113
127 131 137 139 149 151 157 163 167 173
179 181 191 193 197 199 211 223 227 229
233 239 241 251 257 263 269 271 277 281
283 293 307 311 313 317 331 337 347 349
353 359 367 373 379 383 389 397 401 409
419 421 431 433 439 443 449 457 461 463
467 479 487 491 499 503 509 521 523 541

13 posted on 01/18/2011 11:35:34 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: DManA

If we let “1” in the club, then the prime number theorem gets messy. It’s the uniqueness part.

14 posted on 01/18/2011 11:36:44 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Nice try. Needs a bit more development work.

“Dying is easy....Comedy is hard.”
attributed to many actors, perhaps originally from Edmund Kean.

15 posted on 01/18/2011 11:39:05 AM PST by devere

To: PuzzledInTX
Wait....what? I forgot the question. Guess my profession.

Politician? (I work with a lot of "applied" mathematicians. Most of them don't remember Rolle's Theorem, but they transpose a mean Jacobian.)

16 posted on 01/18/2011 11:40:30 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: devere

That’s not embellishment. I suppose it’s intended as mockery, destruction or derision, then?

17 posted on 01/18/2011 11:42:54 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

4-8-15-16-23-42

18 posted on 01/18/2011 11:43:53 AM PST by ichabod1 (Hail Mary Full of Grace, The Lord Is With Thee...)

To: ichabod1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology_of_Lost#The_Numbers

Are you a Libra?

19 posted on 01/18/2011 11:46:21 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Socialists are to economics what circle squarers are to math; undaunted by reason or derision.)

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

Obama: it is racist to call any number odd.

20 posted on 01/18/2011 11:47:19 AM PST by libh8er